As we all know things have not been cheery recently, what with the Australian fires, Trump killing the wrong person the wrong person at the wrong time, Iran filing missiles into airplanes accidentally. My goodness, I am glad I am not a world leader, or married to one even. Now The New Yorker tells us about an oldie, but not a good a goodie – that is for sure. The article begins:” The former film producer Harvey Weinstein is now on trial in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan for first-degree rape, third-degree rape, first-degree criminal sexual act, and predatory sexual assault. Weinstein contends that the incidents were consensual. The first day of the trial began with Weinstein entering the courthouse in lower Manhattan with a walker. It ended with prosecutors in Los Angeles announcing that they had charged Weinstein with raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in 2013.”
Do not you hate the victim stance that Weinstein is taking?? Comes in with a walker – sure as God made little green applies, that man does not need a walker.
However, the problem with the case as a whole is elucidate by David Remnick, the author of this superb, insightful piece is that there is no forensic evidence, What is elucidated: make (something) clear, explain. This, used in a sentence: Work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter and I shall try to elucidate what I believe the problems to be.
Remnick goes on to discuss that Weinstein will be able to show, in the absence of forensic evidence, that these women had a friendly relationship with Weinstein – casting doubt that the rapes were not consensual. They had to have a friendly relationship with him, otherwise they would not get the job or be around the creep in the first place.
Remnick goes on to say: “If only I had a crystal ball—I’d break so many more stories for you! I will say that a number of attorneys well versed in New York sex-crimes cases have told me that they think the prosecution has significant advantages. Obviously, one goal of jury selection has been to root out anyone with preconceptions about Weinstein. Last week, we saw a number of jurors sent home because they said they’d read my book—ideally, you don’t want a juror in a case like this to be familiar with any prior reporting, however fair. But it’s going to be pretty unrealistic to find anyone with zero exposure to the idea that there have been many, many allegations of rape and harassment against Harvey Weinstein. So you may wind up with a jury that’s receptive to the charge with the greatest maximum sentence—the predatory-sexual-assault charge, which rests on his behaviour being part of a course of conduct or a pattern.”
Exactly Remnick and need I remind you all of the Simpson trial where the jury consisted of people that had not heard of the case. One had to be dead from the neck up not to hear of Simpson and his shenanigans. Dead from the neck up – now there is an expression that bears repetition If you say that someone is dead from the neck up, you are saying very rudely that they are stupid. Yes, he’s good-looking, but he’s dead from the neck up.
Remnick accurately reports that the Weinstein case has profound meaning for certain survivors and ‘activists. “It tests a lot of systems that have failed a lot of people for a long time.”
But here is the flawed thinking on the part of Remnick, a man who I otherwise respect. One does not need to be a victim. One can as an individual just SAY NO. I have on several occasions. A powerful man by the name of Grant Walsh, a Canadian, wanted to go to bed with me. I humorously said:
Me: No. That is no way to start a relationship. Besides that before one can go to bed with me has to get 1000 points. It would be 25 for dinner, 35 for dinner and the theatre, etc. etc.
He: Then have a bubble bath with me. One thing would lead to another. No bubble bath.
Me: No way, one thing leads to another.
He just laughed and took off for Ottawa when he was supposed to. He did come back to Vancouver a few months later and later, at least I got dinner at the Pacific Rim Hotel. I definitely won that round. A humours picture of me in the bathtub drawn by a cartoonist will be featured in tomorrow’s blog.
So it is my profoundly intellection opinion that Me Two is totally unnecessary and does, indeed get in the way of women standing up for their individual rights.
This has caused me to think about a current relationship. I am not sure that he has bought me dinner and he certainly can afford it. I speak to him later.
